HMP Long Lartin, Inspections

The prison was inspected in December 2022 and the full report can be read by following the links below. In their latest report the inspectors said:

“Located in the Vale of Evesham, Worcestershire, Long Lartin is a high security prison holding up to 514 adult men, many of whom are among the highest risk and most serious offenders in the country. At the time of our inspection, for example, of the 478 prisoners in residence, 141 were designated as category A, the highest security classification, and 449 were serving indeterminate sentences including life. Walking around the prison wings, we met many individuals who faced or had already spent many years, even decades, in the prison, with the imposition and requirements of security an ever-present pressure on their experience. Many expressed to us their frustrations with life in Long Lartin, and some their sense of hopelessness.

Overall, this inspection was disappointing, with assessments in three of our four healthy prison tests – safety, purposeful activity, and rehabilitation and release planning – all deteriorating since we last inspected in 2018. Only in respect did outcomes remain the same, although it was still judged not sufficiently good. For a high security prison, most surprising among these tests was safety, where the priorities and purpose of such institutions ordinarily mean better scores. While there were some positive aspects, arrangements for the reception, assessment and induction of new arrivals were limited, the rate of assaults against staff was the highest among comparable prisons, and other metrics such as adjudications, use of force and, until the week before our inspection, the number of prisoners segregated, were all high. Security processes, as we would expect, were generally good, although the mandatory drug testing rate was a surprisingly high 20%. The rate of self-harm had doubled, making it the highest among comparable prisons, with 92 separate individuals having self[1]harmed over the past year. There had been eight self-inflicted deaths since the last inspection.

First opened in the early 1970s, the prison had undergone at least two significant phases of development since the late 1990s, leaving it with a mix of accommodation types. Environmental standards varied across the site: some accommodation units were not clean enough, investment in the older units was needed, and there was a problem with rat infestation in the grounds. Reasonable staff-prisoner relationships were something of a mitigation, with most prisoners saying they were treated with respect, and we saw some developing structures in place to support prisoner consultation. That said, many prisoners felt frustrated at their inability to get things done, formal complaints were high and arrangements which might have supported and made better use of reasonable relationships, such as key work, were lacking. Work to promote equality was similarly inconsistent. Outcomes in health care were generally good.

A split daily regime meant that most prisoners could be unlocked for at least 2.5 hours a day and twice that for the few who had a job. Limited evening association up to 6.30pm was available for some prisoners, although a repeated complaint among those we spoke to was the unpredictability of routines. Severe officer shortages were directly linked to the very limited opportunities to engage in purposeful activity. Our colleagues in Ofsted judged the overall effectiveness of learning and skills provision as ‘inadequate’, their lowest assessment. Added to this we found a series of significant shortcomings in the promotion of family ties, offender management, offending behaviour interventions and public protection arrangements, all issues that should have been institutional priorities.

This inspection gave us the sense that Long Lartin needed a reset. Leaders were not fully sighted on several of the weaknesses we identified and tended to overestimate their achievements. Staffing shortages were hindering delivery, and while there were some useful plans to improve this situation, implementation was slow. Above all, the prison needed a clear focus on how to meet the needs of the very particular type of prisoner it held. We have identified several priorities which we hope will assist this process.

Charlie Taylor
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
February 2023″

 

 

The inspectors also provide a summary of their main concerns

What needs to improve at HMP Long Lartin

During this inspection we identified 15 key concerns, of which six should be treated as priorities. Priority concerns are those that are most important to improving outcomes for prisoners. They require immediate attention by leaders and managers.

Leaders should make sure that all concerns identified here are addressed and that progress is tracked through a plan which sets out how and when the concerns will be resolved. The plan should be provided to HMI Prisons.

Priority concerns

  1. The level of self-harm had doubled since our last inspection and was the highest among comparable prisons, but there was no plan to reduce it.
  2. Levels of violence were too high, especially against staff. The safety team was under-resourced, and work to address the causes of violence remained limited.
  3. The prison’s infrastructure was in very poor condition and in need of investment. Many cells had no toilet or running water, and the heating, roofs, showers, kitchen equipment and some physical security systems were failing.
  4. Prisoners spent too much time locked up and the regime was delivered inconsistently.
  5. Provision of education, training and work was insufficient, and prisoners were not allocated to courses that met their needs.
  6. Prisoners had insufficient contact with offender managers to support risk reduction and sentence progression.

 Key concerns

  1. There was a high level of illicit drug use, but plans to reduce drug supply or to limit demand were lacking.
  2. Too few key work sessions were being delivered, limiting staff[1]prisoner relationships and sentence progression.
  3. The prison did not do enough to address perceived disproportionate treatment among those from ethnic and religious minorities or to cater for the prison’s large number of disabled prisoners.
  4. The health care inpatient unit and the end-of-life cell were not suitable and too many prisoners were placed in the unit inappropriately
  5. The shortage of pharmacy staff was affecting service delivery. Prescribing was not subject to effective oversight or scrutiny, and governance of out-of-hours’ medicines use was poor.
  6. There was not enough mathematics or English provision, and teaching standards in those subjects were poor.
  7. Leaders had made insufficient progress in improving prisoners’ reading levels.
  8. Leaders had not developed a personal development curriculum across education and work. Prisoners were not given formal opportunities to learn about equality, diversity or recent significant changes in society.
  9. There were shortfalls in public protection arrangements. The interdepartmental risk management meeting was poorly attended and there was a lack of information sharing. Ongoing action relating to risks to children remained unresolved.  

Return to Long Lartin

To read the full inspectors reports follow the links below:

You don't always get what you are entitled to unless you ask properly!

We can introduce you to  experienced  lawyers can help you with parole,  probation,  immigration, adjudications, visits and any other complaints  and disputes you have with the Prison Service.

The solicitors are all experts on how the Prison Service/Criminal Law  system works and will be able to provide to you the necessary advice and support to ensure you or your loved ones are treated fairly. These lawyers are "small enough to care about you, but big enough to fight for you"

and remember the old saying:

" A Man Who Is His Own Lawyer Has A Fool for a Client"

Click here to go to the list of lawyers in your area